Pages on this site

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Prop 8 case: what if they don't find standing?

One of the arguments the Supreme Court will hear in the Prop8 case is whether or not the proponents of Prop8, who appealed their case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, had legal "standing" to do so, since the State of California declined.
Scotusblog discusses the possible outcomes.

If the Court were to hold that the petitioners in Hollingsworth v. Perry — the Proposition 8 initiative sponsors — do not have Article III standing to appeal, what then? What would become of the judgments below, and of Proposition 8 more broadly?

The Supreme Court presumably would reverse and vacate the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, since the Proposition 8 proponents were also the only parties to appeal to that court from the district court judgment. If that were to happen, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion would no longer have precedential effect that would govern future cases challenging California’s (or any other state’s) refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. ....

But what about Judge Walker’s judgment and injunction in the district court in Perry? What would become of that?

Most likely, nothing — it would stand. In the district court, the named defendant state and local officials did appear, and there was complete Article III adversity between them and the plaintiffs. Judge Walker’s injunction was entered against the named defendants, and it altered the legal relationship between them and the plaintiffs. Therefore it should remain intact.....

...it would mean that the two couples who sued in Perry — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo — would receive marriage licenses from the defendant Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, respectively.

But would the injunction have any further effect, on other same-sex couples in California?

It shouldn’t — not of its own force, anyway.

WOuldn't that be amazing....all this and it wouldn't affect the rights of any other couples in CA besides the two couples who brought the case.

If this happens, there will be another ballot measure. Because ultimately that's the most reliable way to overturn this bigoted, hate-filled amendment.

No comments:

"These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."--Supreme Court of California

Search This Blog

Loading...

Help yourself to this blog badge

Welcome

I got married during the California Interregnum, the summer of love when it was legal for same sex partners to marry. And despite Prop8, 18,000 same sex couples remained married, until finally, Prop8 fell and our LGBT brothers and sisters could once more marry. Since then, we have seen marriage equality spreading steadily across America. Because even our opponents admit, we will be more truly American when everyone can marry the person they love.

Check out graphics and links in the sidebar; also, scroll down to the list of labels to find posts on specific subjects.

Follow by Email

There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

-David Boies

Recent comments

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection....A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." --Coretta Scott King

Some pages on this site

"[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment." --Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall

"Gay brothers and sisters,... You must come out. Come out... to your parents... I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives... come out to your friends... if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors... to your fellow workers... to the people who work where you eat and shop... Once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes."

"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."